We the Reds have won one more championship than is officially accepted. When Everton left Anfiled they could only do so by setting up a fresh company with a new board, directors and officials, plus the issue of 5, 000 shares. The Football League allowed this entity to take the name and retain League membership.

John Houlding, wanted his new club to inherit all those privileges, but once this was denied he changed the club`s name.

He registered Everton FC and Athletic Grounds LTD on 15 March 1892 while the soon-to-be old tenants remained in residence, Once that plan was thwarted the new name- intended to be Liverpool Football Club Towards the end of March, just two weeks after the board split, Houlding`s committee passed a resolution giving effect to the suggestion.

During the summer the Board of Trade, a government department, accepted the change of name from Everton Football Club and Athletic Grounds Company LTD.

The Record books reflect that Everton FC hold that title and no Liverpool fan will want to clam the accolade but strictly speaking the REDS have won 19 English titles

ON WHY can`t you read the post and STOP say it is pathetic READ the post Again.... The Record books do not reflect that Everton FC hold that title and no Liverpool fan will want to clam the accolade but strictly speaking the REDS have won 19 English titles.

I don't understand why you are so against the History of Liverpool FC and the fact that this DID happen.... No Liverpool supporter wants this especially ME as I do go to SEE Liverpool play week in and week out AND I have done since the age of 8.

Satements like "What's the point of claiming a title that's not legit or entirely ours" READ THE POST again before you use words like pathetic.... I was under the impression that this forum was The Stands: Intelligent Footy Debate. And you was a Liverpool supporter

Juno.... Wiki is Not always the most reliable source The Board of Trade, a Government Department accepted the change of name from Everton Football Club and Athletic Grounds Company LTD-who finished top of the league in 1891- to Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Company Ltd

The thing is, I'm not disputing Everton won 1891 title. But quote : "The official split between Houlding and Everton took place on the 12th of March 1892, & Liverpool F.See. Was formed on the 15th of March 1892. " copied from liverpool's official site. It meant Liverpool which was created on YEAR 1892 would not exist to claim the 1890–91 title. If you are saying 1891-92, read: Liverpool was formed on the 15th of March 1892, meaning it would be the later half of the competition. And Sunderland , Preston and Bolton came in 1st 2nd and 3rd. Where was Liverpool? Lancashire League. They were rejected first division.

Timeline: 1892 Liverpool Football Club is formed 1892 Reds win first ever game 1893 First game in Football League 1894 Promotion won at first attempt

Grabbed from Liverpool official site.

To me, I don't care if Everton's 1891 title was really won by Liverpool's management, players or whoever, the fact remains to me that Liverpool was not formed before 1891, thus to announce that they won a title when they don't exist seems ridiculous.

The situation is not as if Everton was dissolved, and Liverpool rose in its place to pick up what's left over. You can't just take the title away because the board of trade accepted the name change.

All I am saying is John Houlding registered Everton F. [C.] and Athletic Grounds Ltd on the 15 of Match 1892, while the soon-to-be old tenants remained in residence. Once that plan was thwarted the new name-intended to be Liverpool F. [C.] until the city`s rugby club team objected-Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Ltd was adopted. Towards the end of March, just two weeks after the board split Houlding`s committe passed a resolution giving effect to the suggestion. During the summer the government department accepted the change of name from EFC who finished top of the league in 1891 to LFC...

Nice story dutch, but a story is what it is. Interesting piece of nostalgia, maybe some shouldnt be so dismissive of it, I don't think dutch is clutching at straws because utd have won 19 titles, if I wanted to be petty, I could say we have more second place positions in the league since its inception, so last year when we were on 18 apiece, if you counted the amount of second places since the league started, utd were better, but its a lame excuse and proves nothing. Still a good piece of info dutch

Nice idea dutch, I like it.... Why don't you go ahead and start it going, set the standards so they don't post any old crap, like for instance, did you know genoa the italian team have cricket club in the name? .... True Put it in the terraces

I wonder what happened with the players. Do you know DutchReds, whether Liverpool were created from scratch or whether the team split with some of the 1890-91 players joining the new club? If the it is the first then maybe Liverpool don't have 19 even "strictly speaking". Also if all the team went with the new club and Everton had to be built from scratch than maybe Liverpool should claim that title. We risk a new debate here: What is a club? A) owner(s) Be) players See) fans D) all of above E) a and be F) be and see G) a and see

Maybe if the thread started with Liverpool won 18. 5 league titles people would have been less jumpy, but I think this kind of threads enrich FT, whether you agree or not with what's written here